On Point: 4. Objection/offer of proof

State v. David W. Oakley, 2001 WI 103, 629 N.W.2d 308, reconsideration denied, 2001 WI 123, affirming unpublished decision of court of appeals
For Oakley: Timothy T. Kay

Issue: Whether a claim of plea bargain error was waived by a subsequent renegotiation of the plea bargain and entry of no contest plea on that new agreement.

Holding:

¶23  As this court has previously stated,

State v. Michael F. Howard, 2001 WI App 137

Issue/Holding: Failure to object to plea bargain breach waives the issue, leaving ineffective assistance of counsel the only mechanism for raising it. ¶21.

Also see, State v. Harold Merryfield, 229 Wis.2d 52, 598 N.W.2d 251 (Ct. App. 1999) (asserted plea bargain violation held waived, under State v. Smith, 153 Wis. 2d 739, 451 N.W.2d 794 (Ct.

State v. John D. Williams, 2001 WI App 7, 241 Wis. 2d 1, 624 N.W.2d 164, affirmed without discussing this issue, 2002 WI 1
For Williams: John A. Pray

Issue: Whether the defendant properly preserved objection to a prosecutorial breach of plea bargain.

Holding: ¶13:

(T)he trial court recognized it as an objection and initially agreed with Williams’s attorney. The objection was sufficient.

(See also Appeals, Waiver; and Evidence, Objection)
State v. Charles J. Benoit, 229 Wis.2d 630, 600 N.W.2d 193 (Ct. App. 1999).
For Benoit: Meredith J. Ross, LAIP.
Holding: “(A) defendant who makes a motion in limine preserves the right to appeal the issue raised by the motion without renewing the motion at trial,” but only to “the extent that the issue was raised during the motion in limine hearing.”

State v. David C. Tutlewski, 231 Wis.2d 379, 605 N.W.2d 561 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Tutlewski: Dianne M. Erickson

Issue: Whether citation to relevant authority preserved an evidentiary objection.

Holding: The issue was preserved by contemporaneous objection that included citation to relevant caselaw:

¶10     At trial and before Carver was permitted to testify, Tutlewski renewed his objection to the State’s calling of Carver. 

State v. David J. Gardner, 230 Wis. 2d 32, 601 N.W.2d 670 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Gardner: Steven P. Weiss, SPD, Madison Appellate

Holding: Gardner attempted to raise an involuntary intoxication defense, § 939.42(1), based on the effects of prescription medication. The trial court heard his offer of proof and barred his expert (psychiatrist) from testifying. Unlike voluntary intoxication, involuntary intoxication doesn’t negate intent; it instead renders the actor incapable of distinguishing right from wrong,

State v. Richard Dodson, 219 Wis.2d 65, 580 N.W.2d 181 (1998), unpublished decision below
For Dodson: Michael J. Backes

Issue: Whether an offer of proof must be in question-and-answer form.

Holding:

¶15 The court in Milenkovich did not say, and we do not say now, that every offer of proof should be accompanied by a question and answer format. There are cases in which the evidentiary problem posed is easily resolved by statements of counsel.